Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Army size

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-syria-crisis-iraqbre9390ob-20130410,0,565661.story you guys should add a + on the number of the iraqi shia militants and also add the air force personal to the number of syrian army.

About the FSA i dont know 140 000 i mean come on until february they were 100 000 now 140 000 i think this is a little bit of propaganda you cannot estimate the number of fighters on both sides cuz it is unknown i realy think it should be put back to the way it is and you shoudl increse the number of shabiha http://english.the-syrian.com/2012/03/17/what-if-bashar-assad-wins/ the source claims that there around 25 000 shabiha in alepo. So if you can incrise the number of FSA soldiers overnight cuz some experts said so i think it would be fair enough to increase the shabiha as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.232.110 (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know who provided the source, this Egyptian news agency (AHRAM) is like Debka that exaggerates and mistranslates speeches, they are a disinformation agency, you can see their propaganda focus on Israel, There is no way I would use that agencys news anywhere as source, please find better sources to back the 140k claim. Jumada (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources regarding the size of al-Assad's army also needs some verification ASAP! Coltsfan (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats the problem, we cannot verify it nor is there any other article that suggests the numbers, but the source for the Assad forces is more reliable that the latest one which claims 140k FSA fighters.
If you have followed the revolution you would know that the number of forces are between 70k - 100k maximum. Other sources claimed the number around 50k FSA, with other groups 15k; but those sources were also unreliable and thus they are ignored. Jumada (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's kind of impossible to find reliable sources to the numbers (casualties and the size of the forces involved) that the article put out. Theses sources are, in essence, all unreliable since nobody (journalists or experts) can really make any kind of backround check to see if these numbers are correct. We can only estimate. But if the source that formerly indicated the size of the FSA in 70-100k are more reliable, than simply put it back! Coltsfan (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, where are the numbers of armed forces from? Its a generally accepted fact that Al Nusra is the main fighting force in Syria, for the opposition. Common.. 140,000 FSA fighters?? Btw: the SAA is winning the war and would have lost long ago if they would be without the support of the people. Ratipok (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually its the opposite. The Opposition is winning a war that they would have lost a long time ago if they didn't have the support of the people. The Syrian army is a professional army, the rebels are an insurgency. Sopher99 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the source that says in the article that the Syrian Armed Forces has 130k troop in it's ranks. But I didn't found anything of the sort on the source! Can someone give it a look? Coltsfan (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced it with two sources. Sopher99 (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure they are, 'winning' that is:) In reality, the SAA is successfully closing down the border with Lebanon and especially Jordan, from where the most of the 'opposition' fighters is coming from (hence the deployment of 200 US soldiers in Jordan so they would provide logisitical help and, if needed, to prepare the terrain for foregin intervention). For the same reason, the army is taking Daraa, a major border town to the south and the only major town between the Jordanian border and Damascus. Homs and Hama are virtualy secure, so is most of Damascus and its rular area, with a protective army ring at its suburbs and villages. The freeway between Damascus and Aleppo is reopened and Maarrat al-Nu'man, a town next to that freeway - half way between Aleppo and Hama, is surrounded by the army which has successfully defended the Wadi Dief and Al Hamidiyah army bases around that town. In the past two weeks the army had also taken control of the couple of Aleppo's districts (Sheikh Maqsood, Sheikhy Saeed, Marjeh, Bab al Nayrab etc.) and secured the area around the airport, with the intention of slicing through the city proper and divide it to west and east (efectivelly crushing the rebels in the western part which is already surrounded by the SAA in its rural areas). Furthermore, the battle to retake Ar-Raqqah, 'the only conquered provincial capital by the rebels' (though in reality, they have never secured the Division 17 barracks, whithin the city limits), had begun and the SAA took control of the industiral area and is on the offensive. The rebel reinforcment comming to help the city, was crushed in the country side and the rebels inside Raqqa are on their own. But hey, you keep on eating what the propaganda media, of the countries that want to control and destroy another mid-east independent nation, is feeding you with. Btw, the FSA is now also fighting the al-Qaeda backed Al-nusra front, which is the backbone of the 'oposition' forces in Syria and which sole purpose in the country is to create an Islamic state. Ratipok (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You are so misguided on facts. Most foreigners come from TURKEY, not lebanon or Jordan. And actually just last month rebels captured Jordan's two main border crossings. [1]. before that the FSA never held any Jordan border crossing, and they never held Lebanon border crossings either. Homs frontline hasn't changed in nine months and rebels never held Hama. Damascus and its rural area are certainly not "secure". The freeway between Damascus and Aleppo is not open, rebels control Harast al Nabk Ratsan Talbiseh Maraat al numaan, Saraqib, Safira, ect. The Syrian army has not surrounded maraat al numan, if you payed attention they surrounded babuleen , five miles to the south. The syrian army has not taken back 1% of Raqqa, no source - SOHR or any other- reports any gains by the syrian army in Raqqa. Please stop listening to the Kremlin and actually see reality for once. Hezbollah is the backbone of the Syrian army. 2 of the syrian army's only three victories this past two months - the Qusair villages and Saddinya zeinbab - were fought by hezbollah terrorists. Sopher99 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
1 year ago in April the rebels numbered 30,000. Today they number 150,000. If the Syrian army couldn't defeat them in April last year when it was at full strength, they are sure not defeating them now. Sopher99 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Fisk: Beware wishful thinking. Assad isn’t going soon Robert Fisk, The Independent, Thursday 18 April 2013

Assad Thinks He's Winning The Syrian War — And He May Be Right Business Insider, 25 April 2013

Syria Claims Disruption of a Rebel Supply Line New York Times, Middle East, 25 April 2013

And yet "Sopher99" continues to maintain that there is no evidence of the rebel having problems. 2.96.115.6 (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


1 - Syria has chemical weapons. Everyone knows it. Even Russia says so. Even Jihad Makdissi said so. 2 - Why then does Assad block the UN team from investigating? He even called for an investigation, and now he is blocking the very investigation he called for!. 3 - We can confirm there were victims with our own eyes. Not only youtube, but independent reporters reached witnesses as well. 4 - Defense secretary Chuck Hagel is the most anti-intervention person we ever had. So much so that republicans tried filibustering his nomination. If he says chemical weapons were used( specifically sarin based off blood samples collected) hes probably not lying because it is against his interest to intervene. Sopher99 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


Coltsfan, I fixed this problem over a week ago. I switched the sources and altered the number accordingly. Sopher99 (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? I cannot even see the article because of that ad! Coltsfan (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You can see the content by simply scrolling it down, reading it one paragraph at a time. It didn't have that signup requirement last time I checked. But you can plainly see the figures by scrolling down. Sopher99 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And around and around we go. While seemingly off-topic, does not the question of who is winning (or losing) have some impact? For if the Syrian Army has the training, weapons and numbers - it will win. That said, given the chance of any real agreement (on numbers) is remote, then this debate seems to have out-lived its usefulness. 78.147.83.178 (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • On the subject of who is winning and who is losing, here is a good piece of article! I found it very interesting. Coltsfan (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • What don't people understand about the rebels numbering 40,000 in May 2012 and 140,000 in May 2013? Assad can never win because the rebels have over 3 times as many people as they did when rebels were at their weakest. Assad's army is losing numbers, once numbered 200k now numbers 100k. Rebels have more men in Aleppo now than they did in the entirety of Syria last April. And there was not even a single rebel in Aleppo last April... Sopher99 (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This winning and losing thing, I see 2 very biased sides. What i believe though is it is a stalemate, neither side winning. There seems to be American media saying the rebels are winning, and eastern media saying the opposite. Right now it might be a stalemate, but i don't think the rebels will ever go away. It may be like the Chinese civil war, very long, but the opposition eventually wins. I think Assad will stay as long as he can, but eventually, maybe in a very long time, be forced out. Jacob102699 (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we please stop this Western-Eastern media talk? "western media" does not report rebels are winning. Eastern media (other than Iran) does not report the regime is winning. We tend to use Reuters BBC CNN Al Jazeera Telegraph Guardian ect to source rebel advances, and likewise we use Reuters BBC CNN Al Jazeera Telegraph Guardian ect to source Syrian army advancements. There is no west-east bias. Sopher99 (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Are people mentioning pro-West bias because (to a certain degree) it-is-true? Having spent most of last year attempted to give the impression that the rebels were about to win, Western media are now cutting back on their one-sided reporting. To a limited degree, they are starting to reflect/allow a wider range of information. Take the following from Reuters:

“...ASSAD ADVANCING State forces and loyalist militias appear to have made substantial gains in recent weeks, seizing several suburbs outside Damascus and recapturing territory in Homs, birthplace of the armed insurgency...” (Erika Solomon, Thu May 2, 2013) 2.96.126.197 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Even the mainstream "Western" media are lately reporting that the Syrian Arab Army is in fact winning this war. Goes to show how "reliable" were the reports of tens of thousands defectors from the army and their "support" by the majority of Syrians. Ratipok (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The media is not reporting that the regime is winning the war. What they are reporting is their recent offensives, none of which brought the rebel territory back to its 2012 size. There are tens of thousands of defectors but it should be remembered that the Syrian army and shabiha still outnumber the rebel forces to a degree, and the rebels have constraint ammunition. Sopher99 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I was going to start a separate thread, but decided this would be the appropriate section. The FSA-140,000 looks like an outlandish figure, most sources say around 50,000 and the highest I've seen is 100,000, although the latter was not for those who pledge allegiance to the FSA, but the all the rebels forces including the jihadists/other Islamists and the Kurdish fighter. Documenting this conflict is certainly not easy and nothing is really certain, but for the sake of our credibility we should try to keep things as close to what the mainstream or expert sources say as possible and not go for what any source out there claims. Ahram isn't necessarily unreliable, but it's far from the best source when it comes to a situation like this where there are many other sources which could be used. We should remove this fringe number from the infobox unless some more reliable sources support it. Thoughts? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Child soldiers

A simple control f doesn't show anything about child soldiers. I think it's obvious child soldiers have become a sad reality of this conflict. A simple Google search will return many hits. Please do a search yourself. Here are some that I found:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/photo-syrian-child-soldier-ahmed-smoking-gun-aleppo.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169216/Terror-boy-soldier-Kalashnikov-toting-child-cries-witnesses-horror-Syrias-bloody-civil-war.html

http://rightsni.org/2013/03/syria-child-soldiers-and-the-growing-possibility-of-an-icc-referral/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/syrian-child-soldiers-rebels_n_2210427.html

http://www.thejournal.ie/syria-child-soldiers-829971-Mar2013/

[Warning! Extremely graphic video of child soldier beheading a government supporter.] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxnRm2yFsDU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

With no examples given... FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
When an organisation like Save The Children reports that both sides are using minors, then that is what we report:
"There is a growing pattern of armed groups on both sides of the conflict recruiting children under 18 as porters, guards, informers or fighters. For many children and their families, this is seen as a source of pride. But some children are forcibly recruited into military activities, and in some cases children as young as eight have been used as human shields." (Pg. 11)
This is how WP:RS works. Hell, we can even throw that (quoted, of course) paragraph into the article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The site doesn 't specify that the government is using child soldiers, they only mention several roles given to children. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow yeah who could this mysterious other side in "both sides" be???? Life's great mysteries..... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, now we can add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely we should have more information about it. This is a gross human rights violation. There were many reports about such practices over months, also with graphic video footage. Now the article mentions it in a single place, without any details. --Emesik (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, quite despicable. This information should be placed in appropriate context, I agree. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Now all we need is for someone to suggest or make an actual edit... TippyGoomba (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

So we have reached the consensus that it should be added, but I haven't seen anything. I cannot edit this page otherwise I'd be on it. Does somebody else want to edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuddy999 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

For those clamouring for a specific case of minors fighting for pro-government forces, here you go: [2] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, now somebody who actually has the ability add this. Both government and opposition fighter employ child soldiers. ADD IT! This is a humanitarian catastrophe and is very worthy of inclusion in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuddy999 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Where the fvck are the 15000 Iranian Soldiers?

15000 Iranian Soldiers in Syria

Where are them

Please stop to do bullsh1ts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.160.42 (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you ask that notorious pro-jihadi mouthpiece Russia Tod—oops, I mean trendy "RT"—about where all this fucking bullshit comes from? [3] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Lol, a Chinese paper claiming these soldiers are "heading for Syria" is not confirmation that they are actually on the ground and fighting there. If neither Iran, Syria or Russia have confirmed these rumours independently, and we haven't heard about it since, you can pretty much throw it in the trash. It needs to be removed, or explained what the actual claim is. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hm, fancy that. The good Father Funk himself deriding Russia Today and Chinese state media.
In all seriousness: the fact that the Iranian military maintains a presence in Syria isn't disputed. The 15,000 number is likely just an echo of the estimated full size of the Quds Force and is in all likelihood a gross overestimate of the Iranian military on the ground. This recent report by ISW concludes that while the Iranian military almost certainly is engaged in extensive within Syria, there's no definitive evidence of the IRGC assuming a full combat role. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd trust official statements rather than media outlets on rumours like these, especially when there is no independent verification. Nothing unusual about that. I'm not a blind follower of any side in this conflict, unlike a few other editors here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
"Official statements" of any side are shrouded in a noxious fog of geopolitical posturing and should not be "trusted" either. Thus we go to outside sources—like ISW. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
In that case, what happened to "Why don't you ask that notorious pro-jihadi mouthpiece Russia Tod—oops, I mean trendy "RT""? Doesn't seem a very constructive statement in hindsight, eh? FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Intended as a criticism of "poor, maligned" RT, not an endorsement of the content of the article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment[4] "A top Iranian military official is activily aiding the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad in suppressing popular unrest throughout the country, a top member of the National Syrian Council said on Monday." [5]"Not to separate from the Iranian role in the Syrian theater, this NATO source told Al-Monitor that they have a perception that the role of the Iranians has been exaggerated. “Depending on different intelligence reports, there is somewhere between 3,000 to 15,000 Pasdarans (Iranian Revolutionjary Guards) in Syria,” the NATO source said." Darkness Shines (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
So we have a single "NATO source" claiming that 3,000-15,000 Iranian soldiers fight in Syria. NATO is not neutral here. We also have a single article, citing an unknown Chinese source, which claimed that 15,000 Iranians were "heading to" Syria. We have no single proof like photo or video footage with Iranian soldiers alive or dead. And this picture is summarized in the article with a solid number of 15,000 soldiers already present on the ground.
Doesn't it really sound like a bullshit? --Emesik (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I mean there was that one guy [6] [7]
Plus, weren't you the one squawking above about how we need ~alt media~? Russia Today and People's Daily make for a pretty golden ~alt~ combination. Sounds like two bullshits to me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
WTF has the alternative media to do with that? We are discussing 15,000 Iranian soldiers, not RT here. --Emesik (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Done --Emesik (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, interesting how a number reported by People's Daily and picked up by your esteemed Russia Today is now turned into a "NATO estimate". Some quest for neutral coverage you've got going there. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This article says 1,500 -[8]]Sayerslle (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hm, interesting, Lothar, how you are displaying inability to read. There's a source referenced there. And that is the only source reporting a number of Iranian soldiers on the ground. Not very reliable, but the only one I know. If you have a better one, make a change. --Emesik (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
getting off topic, discussing editors
And what the hell are you trying to say by "your esteemed Russia Today"? --Emesik (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow I guess the references to "15,000 elite Iranian special-ops" that I see in the article you removed must be some kind of optical illusion.
What am I trying to say? ~Alt media~, man. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Man, do you understand English? "Heading to Syria" and "Syria is expecting" does not mean that these soldiers have reached their destination. If you find a source confirming their arrival to Syria, just edit. --Emesik (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Right, maybe all 15,000 of them stopped off for a holiday in Baghdad and went AWOL, then. And right thereafter up to 15,000 different soldiers from the same unit are "reported" in the country. Come now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I mean you have no source confirming their presence. The RT link presents only a guess and I consider it as excessive reference, which doesn't add any information and could be pruned. --Emesik (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not excessive, it's used as part of this silly tug-of-war model of NPOV we're trying to pretend works here. If we're going to attribute who is making these estimates, however wild they are, we should be clear that it is on both sides of the proverbial fence. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
So, Russia Today is a good source or a state-controlled jihadist mouthpiece? Could you express your opinion, please?--Emesik (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
So where are these soldiers now? Should be pretty hard to hide, and we've heard nothing of them since. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you asking me? --Emesik (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Nope, not unless you're defending the claim. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It's just an expression of "bad faith". You know, which is advised against in the Wikipedia guidelines.[9] FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Repent, my child. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite clear Posting Rules, Lothar manages to get away comments such as: "Why don't you ask that notorious pro-jihadi mouthpiece Russia Tod—oops, I mean trendy "RT"—about where all this fucking bullshit comes from?" Since this is Wikipedia - would not such needless and offensive remarks be more fitting on YouTube? 92.24.235.54 (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

According to al-monitor.com

Not to separate from the Iranian role in the Syrian theater, this NATO source told Al-Monitor that they have a perception that the role of the Iranians has been exaggerated. “Depending on different intelligence reports, there is somewhere between 3,000 to 15,000 Pasdarans (Iranian Revolutionjary Guards) in Syria,” the NATO source said. “But if and when we decide to intervene, no one even takes this as a serious challenge, or consider Iran directly engaging in a fight with NATO forces.”

According to russia today

The regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria is expecting up to 15,000 Iranian troops to help maintain order in the country’s provinces, a Chinese newspaper reports.

I suggest that better sources be found or the numbers be removed. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Only if we take out Alqaeda in Iraq from the supporting section. I see no fighters from alqaeda fighting under the banner of alqaeda or on behalf of alqaeda in Iraq. The Islamist State of Iraq declaring allegiance has nothing to do with this. I see no sources of material support either. So basically there is nothing but rhetorical and moral support coming from Iraqi alqaeda. Some joining Al nusra wouldn't mean anything either, as NTC rebels from libya have joined the FSA, doesn't mean Libya is a combatant. So if we are going to remove Iran for "weak sources", we do the same for Alqaeda in Iraq. I would rather have neither removed. But if one gets removed, we apply the same weight. Sopher99 (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Did I mention I like sources and context? The source you are comparing to the Iran sources are the following. Reuters is the Iraqi Shi'ite fighters
"We formed the Abu al-Fadhal al-Abbas brigade which includes 500 Iraqi, Syrian and some other nationalities," an Iraqi defector from the Mehdi Army who goes by the name of Abu Hajar told Reuters by satellite telephone from Syria.
Thus, we have a named source against "a Chinese newspaper" and "the [unnamed] NATO source". Furthermore, I would suggest that reuters has a higher journalistic standard for fact checking than al-monitor and rt. I believe that your slippery slope argument falls flat. Would anyone else care to comment? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Re-read my comment. When and where did I mention Shiite fighters? I am talking about Alqaeda in Iraq. If you go to the Mujahideen part of the infobox, in the collapsable list there is Alqaeda in Iraq listed as a supporter. Sopher99 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know anything about this conflict. I seemed to have picked up on the word Iraqi. I like context. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll also clarify that I'm suggesting we remove Iran from "strength" but leave Iran in "Belligerents", unless a source for the 15,000 number can be found. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Now I understand you. Why not just put "up to 15,000"?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-top-iran-military-official-aiding-assad-s-crackdown-on-syria-opposition-1.411402 heres a source saying Al quds are sent to Syria, and the force is normally 15,000. Sopher99 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I just wanted a better source. That one works for me. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Uhm no. The article states: "The Quds Force includes 15,000 elite soldiers". Nowhere is it claimed the entire Quds Force has been sent to Syria. And on further exception, that article only claims a single commander of the force has entered Syria to help in "the war room". Do you guys even read your own sources? FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
What's your suggested edit? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
That we remove unsupported numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Our most-recent source contains the following bits of text

A top Iranian military official is activily aiding the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad
According to the Syrian official, Kassam Salimani, commander of the Quds Force, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard special forces unit, has arrived in Syria
The Quds Force includes 15,000 elite soldiers

That makes it sound like there's only one guy there, not the entire 15,000. Again, i don't think the other two sources give sufficient weight to the claim. Sopher99? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what the source says, and the claim should therefore be removed entirely. It is gross misinterpretation/manipulation of sources. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like there's no objections, which of us should remove it? Such a delicate page... TippyGoomba (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)\
I didn't even see that this section was still being discussed, What are you suggesting being removed? The numbers? I would recommend you instead write "up to 15,000" because we at-least know that 15,000 is the max. Sopher99 (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
If we said "between 1 and 15,000", that would sound a little silly, no? Yet that would express exactly what we know. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Between 1 (confirmed casualties) and 15,000 (NATO estimate), haha :) --Emesik (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Why go for the max as default? That's utterly silly. The minimum (3000) would be even less controversial, but more reliable. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Government towards its Sunnis

The article contains the statement, "Because the government is dominated by the Alawite sect, it has had to make some gestures toward the majority Sunni sects and other minority populations in order to retain power."
Firstly this is most probably synthesis caused by original research in the first place, I say this because the comment has no source. Beware that even you find a reliable source that suggests this is true, it would remain both false and easily refuted by providing information on the party's structure and ideology. The dominant figure of Alawi in high places is nothing different to what there was in Iraq until 2003 when the sister organisation led by Saddam were mostly from his hometown Tikrit. It didn't mean non-Tikrit people were discriminated, it meant that you had to be trusted by the right people to have a position. Tikrit in turn lies within majority Arab central/south but within religious Sunni minority west/centre. With Bashar al-Asad, it is not a case of him appeasing some Sunnis to retain power because if this had been the case then it would stand to reason that those Sunnis already had influence (ie. power) in which case he has devolved elements of authority to them for keep peace - the scheme would be more akin to power-sharing. If all this were possible, Syria would not have slid into civil war. The point is that the Syrian opposition wages war on the government and this is turn is the Ba'ath Party. So even before Asad can offer positions to sunni Arabs, it is necessary that those Sunnis are Ba'athists in the first place and the party doesn't have restrictions on what faith an Arab needs to have before joining. So the Alawi-dominance factor amounts more to elitism than anything else and if that were the only issue, the party would have split between its Alawi wing and Sunni wing, and given the party adopts a non-secular socialist Pan-Arab ideology rather than a theocracy (total opposite), the idea defies purpose. 188.28.152.134 (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  • It should be removed. At least half of the Sunni Muslims of Syria are still pro-government, and the bulk of the army is still Sunni. Sunnis are overall wealthier than Alawites. The schism is mainly between urban and rural people, who feel they have been neglected. It has since gone sectarian on behalf of the opposition. FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    • how is 'It has since gone sectarian on behalf of the opposition'. - about improving the article -its just stirring. just your opinion- if you say that - give refs to RS, that say so. then they can be brought to bear on the article. what was Bayda and Baniyas massacres - sectarian massacres by rebels? - your comment seems just about denigrating the other side and not at all about improving the article Sayerslle (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Like with all the other massacres, we have no independent confirmation about these ones. Who did it and why will probably not be known for years. As for your first question, ask yourself why so many Sunnis are on the government side, whereas hardly any non-Sunnis are on the opposition side. And no, "they's getting paid moneys" doesn't cut it for millions of people. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I removed the sentence, it strikes me as benign editorialization but pointless all the same. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
In any case, it was biased. A massacre by air-strike is no worse than massacres by suicide bombings. FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Iraq, Syria and the death of the modern Middle East

I see that reverting without discussion has become a standard here: [10] [11]

However, I still recommend a good piece by Murtaza Hussain: Iraq, Syria and the death of the modern Middle East.

What we see in Syria now, it was predicted years ago in another excellent piece: The Redirection.

The question for now is: Since when a statement, reasonably based on recent facts, beginning with Some experts believe.. is a POV-pushing? --Emesik (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

They are both opinion pieces making a Fringe claim. Thats point of view pushing. The second one also counts as original research.Sopher99 (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you support it somehow? Where exactly do you see WP:OR? What, and why, do you mean by fringe? --Emesik (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
First of all can you even tell where in the article does it say that the USA planned fragmentation of SYRIA, and how this author backs up these claims? Opinions are not notable for this page, a page that we are already trying to summarize. Sopher99 (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't Syria a part of Middle East, or what? --Emesik (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This section is a joke, being entirely based on using an editorial piece as established fact (i.e. against wikipedia's standards) and WP:SYN placing of other editorials which were written in 2007, 4 years before the conflict started. It's disturbing that such policy violations ever got onto a page for a major event like this...Needless to say, I've removed it. --Yalens (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What is with this sentence?

Sentence in introduction read:

"In April 2011, the Syrian Army was deployed to quell the uprising, and soldiers were ordered to open fire on demonstrators"

Where did the order come from? Do we have the order written down? Do we have confirmation from a general? If so, where? I don't like this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Soldiers obey orders. Also we have defector testimony, and human rights investigations. Regardless, I'll change the wording. Sopher99 (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Good question. The statement is unsourced. I added a cn tag. When someone adds the source, perhaps it will answer your question. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Sopher99, I check the CNN source, it doesn't say anything about orders to fire upon demonstrators or mention the april date. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
One day, someone should go and check how many of the sources have been misrepresented in the article. I'm sure this is not the only one. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox error

50,000 new localised recruits trained by Iran, Hezbollah (Iranian claim)

Iran never claimed such thing neither did Syria or Hezbollah. This claim was made by Israeli intelligence, and the source provided says the same thing.

So replace the (Iranian claim) with (Israeli claim) Jumada (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to "Israeli military claim". TippyGoomba (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What is POV-push?

Is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=554211999&oldid=554209779

Can someone revert this bullshit? Sopher99 is again trying to overwrite my edits and press his POV into the lede, supporting it by ad-hoc found sources describing an alleged massacre. I'm blocked by 1RR, cannot do it myself. --Emesik (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I simply did it because you like to provide undue weight to the lead, using opinion pieces to write "proxy war" and describing the conflict as "sectarian" , in the lede. If you removes that paragraph from the lede, we should remove the ethnic cleansing bit. You can't have your cake and eat it. Sopher99 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
A shift of the frontlines is undue weight for you? That the war started from pro-democratic demonstrations and turned into sectarian bloodbath, is not worth being included in the lede? UN report is not enough to convince you of sectarian nature of the conflict, right? Is it really insignificant matter, or just does not fit your point of view?
It seems to be your regular behavior. Another example is here and again I have to ask someone to clean up your mess. --Emesik (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Claims of "ethnic cleaning" are highly suspect and obvious propaganda, especially when uttered by Turkey (lol, who are they to speak?). This should be kept out of the article unless verified by several reliable sources. Soon we'll hear about babies killed in their incubators... Same with all the "chemical weapons" hogwash. Has no one learned from the Iraq wars? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/11/us-syria-crisis-massacres-idUSBRE85A1DY20120611 Since Emesik loves opinion peices, how about this reliable source? Normally I wouldn't use it - but hey, if we use opinion peices somewhere in this article we can use them everywhere. (That was sarcasm. what I am trying to say is we don't use opinion pieces). Sopher99 (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
"Other crap exists"[12] is not an argument. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with taking out the ethnic cleansing bit so long as we take out the whole paragraph. No opinion peices, no proxy war, no sectarian opinions, no opinion from anyone anywhere. Just good strait factual lede. Sopher99 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, no opinion pieces. If many reliable sources state the conflict has become sectarian, we can state this, but without going into unnecessary detail. We don't need examples of sectarianism in the lead to make the point come across. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Fine. Funkmunk, please move both the proxy war bit and the ethnic cleansing bit. Sopher99 (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to defend the "proxy war" words to death. It sums up the nature of this conflict very well, but is not a must-have. However, the part about incoming jihadists and sectarian war is supported by many sources, including UN report. It stays in the lede. --Emesik (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The jihadist thing is already written. "Suicide bombings in the capital marked growing influence of jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra within the opposition forces, while Hezbollah entered the war in support of the Syrian army" Sopher99 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

though both the opposition forces and the Syrian government deny that sectarianism plays any key role in the conflict — So what? Since when the bullshit expressed by sides of the conflict is so important? This is pure WP:UNDUE. --Emesik (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Its emphasizing that the Syrian government does not say that this is a war between ethnicity, nor does the opposition say it either. Both deny that the war is sectarian at its core. And gues what, its not a sectarian war. Its Politics, secularism vs not, and kill or be killed. Sopher99 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You mean opinions? And, more specifically, opinions of the sides of the conflict? ROTFL --Emesik (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The UN's statement is an opinion. Its not a hardcore fact like refugees, deaths, territory lost/gain Sopher99 (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, well, good to know that UN opinion is for you the same weight as Assad's. --Emesik (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Lol no. Sopher99 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is confirmed by RS. [13] ISW (page 19): "Assad thus transformed the clear-and-hold counterinsurgency strategy into a form of ethnic cleansing." This should be mentioned in the lede.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Funkmunk suggests we don't provide examples in the lede itself. Sopher99 (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I've moved it down to the sectarianism section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
How is "Understandingwar" a reliable, neutral source on this? It's founder writes "The United States must embrace the Syrian opposition fully in order to strengthen its moderate elements".[14] Yeah right. We need multiple, independent sources for extremely controversial claims, not a glorified opinion piece. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Once claims of ethnic cleansing and baby-killing are thrown around in some circles, there is reason to be suspicious. But weirdly, all critical thinking has been abandoned during this war. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
ISW is committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives. Reliable source? hahahahaha :D --Emesik (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of War

Almost as if to support some of the comments here, Right Web makes clear that the 'Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has supported long-term U.S. military intervention abroad. Although closely connected to neoconservative advocacy circles, ISW claims to be “a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization” devoted to advancing “an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education.”' So much for this being an independent or reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.52.72 (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Biased Article

USA and Israel is physically involved in this war.USA is supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria but you people are hiding it.Why?? SpidErxD (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is hiding anything. If you have a reference for something (a reliable source, not a fringe site, state tv, or blogspot), then show it to us. Sopher99 (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
USA is supplying weapons to Syrian rebels via Saudia Arabia. Watch second para of this. You have included that USA is supporting rebels in the end of article but not in info box of Syrian civil war. 90% users do not read whole article they just read Info Box of article. SpidErxD (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. USA intelligence is coordinating weapons from Croatia to Qatar/S.A. to rebels. USA is neither providing or giving weapons to rebels. They are simply telling those countries which rebel groups to give them to. Sopher99 (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, anyone suggesting an edit here? or should someone close this per WP:NOTFORUM. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"No one is hiding anything"? And yet, while US intelligence is coordinating weapons to rebels/simply telling countries which rebel groups to give weapons to, this is said to be somehow different from the US getting involved. But - even if it is doing it indirectly - the US is involved in supporting the FSA/armed gangs. So why are some attempting to down play this? 89.243.163.221 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Source please. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry If I have missed something here, but most of the information was taken from within the above. "They are simply telling those countries which rebel groups to give them to." Sopher99. 89.243.163.221 (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If USA was sending weapons to rebels and jihadists, Damascus would have already been taken right now. --Amedjay (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hardly. If they had sent planes and soldiers, then yes, but the insurgents are so incompetent in battle that it doesn't make a difference what weapons they have. Besides, the Gulf and the Turks have already showered them with money and weapons. They're good with suicide and car bombs, though, I'll give them that. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Funky, the rebels have already gotten more than enough weapons and money from the Gulf states and the Turks. More weapons and money from the Americans and the Europeans will not do much good except maybe increase the number of killings on both sides. There is still too much of a big difference in heavy hardware (tanks, planes, artillery) between the rebels and the government. Not to mention the government militias have received anti-insurgency training recently from Iran and Hezbollah which has lead to the recent limited but significant battlefield successes by the government troops in the central and southern parts of the country. EkoGraf (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Completely untrue Eko and Funk. Ammunition can cost up to 2k + syrian pounds for rebels. Every single lost (seven in total this year) was due to running out of ammunition. Gulf only supplies a staple supply, mostly to islamists. Lethal weapons form America would be a game changer. Sopher99 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
So who told you that about the losses? Twitter? Sounds like a propaganda excuse for crappy fighting, like all the "tactical retreats". FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
They were not tactical retreats. I just told you that all losses are a result of lack of ammunition. Sopher99 (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
And I just told you Twitter rumours are not news. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Where do you get it in your head that this is twitter. We are talking all available media resources. BBC CNN Reuters Guardian Telegraph Sohr LCC, all mediums. And who says what I see and hear on twitter are rumours? If the contacts are Syrian in Syria, and fighters fighting the fight, or their families, nothing is always rumors. One thing that is not news is your inappropiate curving of the discussion. Sopher99 (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
So where are these sources saying the magic rebels can only lose when they run out of bullets? FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone here suggesting a change to the article? TippyGoomba (talk)

Verifiability is the criteria on wikipedia. Pass a Method talk 20:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Reporting conflict in Syria

“...Given the difficulties of reporting inside Syria, video filed by the opposition on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube may provide some insight into the story on the ground. But stories are never black and white - often shades of grey. Those opposed to President Assad have an agenda. One senior Western official went as far as to describe their YouTube communications strategy as "brilliant". But he also likened it to so-called "psy-ops", brainwashing techniques used by the US and other military to convince people of things that may not necessarily be true...” Jon Williams, BBC World News editor, Thursday, 7 June 2012 (Wonder how long before someone takes this down?)

78.147.94.118 (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Better, more accurate ethno-religious map

See Page 5 of the following link Syria: A Broken State. Could someone model a map on this one or could we just use it directly from the source? The current map is imprecise and pretty inaccurate. It gives the impression that coast is entirely Alawite Arab, while ignoring the fact that the coastline settlements (cities and villages) have a Sunni Arab majority. The northern part of the Latakia Governorate is mostly Sunni Turkmen except for the northernmost point which is inhabited by Armenian Christians. The current map also gives the impression that the northern border areas are entirely Kurdish when in fact only the northwestern corner of Syria, the Turkish border area between the Raqqa and Aleppo Governorates and the northern part of the Hasakah Governorate (everything north of northern Hasakah) is Kurdish, but the large swathe of territory between the northwest corner and the Raqqa-Aleppo border is largely Turkmen. It also ignores the significant Alawite areas north and east of Hama and Homs and the numerous Christian, Druze (Jabal A'la region just northwest of Idlib) and Shia Muslim centers throughout the country. The proposed map by Syria expert Fabrice Balanche is the most adequate, especially if we could modify it to remove the Lebanon ethnic breakdown and correct the Golan Heights. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested in making an ethnoreligious map of Syria. Another good source is the extremely detailed map of Mehrdad Izady.--Kathovo talk 20:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, Izady's map is based on data from the Mandatory Period, but it is still of some utility. This new map corrects one of the more glaring errors in the Izady map by correctly denoting Kesab as Christian as opposed to Kurdish and showing the presence of the Turkmen in Latakia (Jabal al-Turkman), but on the other hand ignores the Kurds in Latakia (Jabal al-Akrad). There are a few issues with both maps, but I think that we could possibly use both of them as well as some other sources to collaboratively create a comprehensive map of Syria's ethnoreligious composition—probably not on this talkpage though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, although I think the Izady map has several issues: the apparent differentiation between Alawites and Nusairis, the false presence of Shias in the area between Khan Shaykhoun, Mhardeh and Hama, the false presence of Circassians in the Bosra area, and the exaggeration of Christian-dominant areas in the Daraa Govert and the northern Ghab plain and an exaggerated presence of the Armenian community in Deir al-Zour. On Jabal al-Akrad, apparently it's just a name denoting the existence of a past Kurdish settlement during the medieval period. I think it might be misleading to call the inhabitants who live there today Kurds. Syria expert Fabrice Balanche has a detailed book on the coastal mountains and writes:

Le pays d’El Aqqrâd est peuplé par une communauté sunnite rurale. A la différence de Baer et de Bassît, il s’agit de tribus kurdes arabisées depuis plusieurs siècles. Seule la toponymie - El Aqqrâd (les Kurdes en arabe) - conserve une trace de l’origine kurde de la population.
Translation (with google's help): The area of El Aqqrâd is populated by a rural Sunni community. Unlike Baer and Basit (who are Turkmen), its inhabitants are the descendants Arabized Kurdish tribes who settled there centuries ago. Only the name of the place - El Aqqrâd ("The Kurds" in Arabic) - denote the trace of the Kurdish population.

--Al Ameer son (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, the Izady map dates back to the French Mandate, so some population shifts will have occurred.
WRT Jabal al-Akrad, Kurds apparently still have a presence there. This article doesn't name the mountain range specifically, but given that it's northern Latakia, it's almost certainly the same: [15] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I just want to make sure we're not labeling an Arabized Kurdish area as Kurdish. And to clarify when I say Arabized, I mean culturally over the centuries, not forcibly by the regime. I think the source you have is sufficient although it would be nice if we could find a source that outright says Jabal al-Akrad. Anyhow, I don't have any serious objections. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

RS no longer valid?

are editors going to get away with side swiping reliable sources? example israel being involved in this war. Baboon43 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is getting ridiculous. Iran is added to the list as an active combatant (sources used are Guardian article (which is copy of an Israeli newspaper article, see dates (28 and 27 May 2012 respectively)) about an alleged appearance of an claim on Iranian website, and Fox News), yet they aren't in any specific battle or event, while Israel, who actively participated, is not listed. --93.136.28.178 (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
whats more ridiculous is that there was consensus. israel was in the infobox until drive by editors arrived several days later and decided to revive the discussion..should we then remove iran and claim no consensus as well? Baboon43 (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Al Qaed takes over al Nusra

From Reuters....

Leader of AQ in Iraq moved into Syria, took over the organization and the former syrian leader went into hiding. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/17/us-syria-crisis-nusra-idUSBRE94G0FY20130517 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.83.44 (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: "Others said that Nusra's Syrian contingent has already effectively collapsed, with its leader Abu Mohammad al-Golani keeping a low profile and his fighters drifting off to join other rebel groups." Sopher99 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel

is now involved.

Should they be added to the box?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0

My personal opinion is that they should now be placed on the side of the opposition forces. They have bombed Syrian government positions.

Thank you.

add israel in the infobox they just attacked syria again! apparently israeli officials say its to prevent syria from transferring weapons to hezbollah but thats highly unlikely..the truth is israel wants assad defeated and al qaeda forces to take over syria. israel also used chemical weapons and blamed it on assad, according to a former u.s official [16] Baboon43 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict . Israel is not a combatant, and even if some argue that it is, only major combatants go in the infobox. the rest are elaborated in the article. We have a whole separate section for Israeli strikes. Sopher99 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
There should be no question that once Israel gets more involved against the Syrian government, it will have to be include don the opposition side. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there must be a criteria for when we decide to add another combatant. Can anyone point me to the appropriate policy? Or do we just need sufficient sources that start calling Israel a combatant? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It has to be common media (not just 3 or 4 sources) recognizing that Israel enters the civil war as a true combatant, ie consistently fighting one side on a near-everyday basis. "stepping into the conflict" and "taking part of the conflict" are vague and are not evidence of belligerence. If Israel launches a long term operation, such as setting a goal to destroy all airbases or chem sites - and not just attacking chemical weapons and missile convoys to hezbollah - then we will definitely put Israel as a combatant. Similarly, if/when the United States decides to launch airstrikes as part of a set operation, we will include them as well. For now Israel stays out of the box. Sopher99 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
See, now Sopher is making up his own, personal criteria. And that's the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Not true - I just didn't put any links to Common Name or Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. I did put a link to Infobox military conflict, which sets the provisions that lesser or occasional combatants (and Israel is even less than that) are advised to be kept out of the infobox and instead elaborated in the article (which Israel is). Sopher99 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It sounded like your own personal criteria (but I'm tempted to agree that we should simply go by what sources say). You now state you're going by policy, can you link to and quote from the policy you mention? Also, I see nothing prescriptive in the infobox link you gave earlier. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
And the sources did exactly say Israel had joined the conflict, see old discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_19#Arbitrary_break FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI, if Israel was seen as entering the conflict, they could be added as a third column rather than under the Syrian opposition side. Hello32020 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary. Just as mujihideen and kurds don't share exact same interest with the FSA, there is an overall antagonism centered against the regime. So Israel would go in rebels side, in a separate row. Sopher99 (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
infobox should be clear that israel backs the rebels or why else would it attack syria? Baboon43 (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Israel is not supporting the rebels. The attacks it carries out are not aimed to weaken the Syrian military, their aim is to prevent Syrian weapons from falling into Hezbollah hands. Israel is simply acting according to its own interests, so they should be in a separate column. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
See, that's a whole other discussion, why are the Kurds in the same column as the rebels then, when they are actively fighting the rebels (unlike Israel, which has even treated wounded rebels, and never ever attacked them)? Maybe you could chime in, Sopher has effectively prevented the creation of a third row for the last months. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Because they have alliance with them. Also in written form (Serekaniye agreement). EllsworthSK (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Lol, so if you have an official "agreement" with someone, but still fight them, you are somehow "allied", but if you don't have an official agreement with someone, and don't fight them, only their enemies, you are not on the same side? FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Welcome to Middle East. Where shit doesn´t make sense. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Btw PYD is fighting daily SAA in Sheikh Maksoud. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not about "sense", but about reflecting what the sources say, and make a neutral infobox. And I doubt you are in a position to school me on the complexities of Middle East conflicts. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly the part preventing me from thinking that Israel should be added as a rebel ally - there's no certainty it hasn't attacked rebel troops. It's still not clear whether the Syrian targets hit during the border clashes a few months back weren't in fact rebels. It's very plausible considering rebel advances in the area and the silence on the part of Syrian state media - they would've made a propaganda statement out of it if SAA troops were hit. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
That's an invalid point, no reliable sources have presented such baseless speculation, and it is therefore irrelevant here. You can be pretty damn sure the "rebels" would had bragged about it if Israel had attacked them Unfortunately for them, this hasn't happened. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not baseless speculation - there's no confirmation that the targets hit were actually of the SAA. Until there is, I see no point in believing it were so. Could you, on the other hand, provide a reliable source stating that Israel's airstrikes represent military support for the rebels ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Occam's razor. Anyhow, this is irrelevant, even if we ignore that one attack, Israel has undeniably attacked the Syrian government at least six or so times. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't put this blame on me when many users, FutureTrillionaire, EkoGraf, Sayersville, ect are also againsgt it. The RFC did not provide any consensus and it even went through the dispute resolution and no consensus was given there either. Sopher99 (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Israel belongs in the the same column. Just as mujihideen and kurds don't share exact same interest with the FSA, there is an overall antagonism centered against the regime. So Israel would go in rebels side, in a separate row. Sopher99 (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
That's something we can agree on. And with so many recent new attacks, it's about time to implement it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Just adding my opinion that yes, Israel should be included as a combatant providing support to the rebel side --CommieMark (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you tourbilllion,israel is really acting on its interest Alhanuty (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, who is questioning that "Israel is acting on its interests"? Wouldn't the opposite be downright ridiculous? The point is, weakening the Syrian military is in Israel's best interest. Israel is only attacking the government, not the opposition, therefore they belong on the same side. After Iran, Israel fears no one in the Middle East more than Syrian and Hezbollah. Even Hamas has lost its teeth completely (after turning to Qatar, funnily enough). Salafists hate Shias more than they hate Jews. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with the ongoing war, israel did the same on 2009, israel does not support FSA nor the Kurds. it's a separate conflect b/w israel and (syria/Iran/Hezbollah) axis. to put them on the same side they should work together or have the same goal 3bdulelah (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel has exactly the same goal as the insurgents: To weaken the Syrian army, and thereby Hezbllah and Iran. Israel has even treated wounded rebels. The Kurds are allied with neither. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • From the New York Times: "Reports of the attack raised the possibility that Israel, even if merely intending to pursue its own national security goals, could end up providing a psychological and perhaps military assist to Syrian rebels, who over the last several weeks have faced losses in a series of government offensives around Damascus and the city of Homs to the north." and "The conflict has taken on an increasingly sectarian cast, and some opposition fighters have said that for the Sunni-led rebellion, the greatest enemy is not Israel but Iran and Hezbollah, which are dominated by Shiites and are the closest allies of Mr. Assad’s government. In recent weeks, the Sunni fighters have increased their criticism of Shiites and Alawites, a related sect to which Mr. Assad belongs." [17] FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Which just highlights the issue, why are the Kurds not in a third column. They are for the French and German versions, while in the Spanish version, there is a division between the PKK which allies with Assad and Kurdish rebels. It is absurd to promote the belief that the Kurds are unified with the Islamists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ask Sopher. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
since editors dont understand the conflict let me make it more clear..israel has gathered the puppet wahabi sunnis to attack shia iran elements in the middle east. this will serve as a perlude to a possible dismantling of hezbollah and an attack on iran to finish off the pie. Baboon43 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Its the opposite. Syria gathered Hezbollah to fight sunnis in Qusair and Homs, and are trying to ship advanced missile systems to Hezbolah like Fateh 110s, prompting Israeli response who do not want Hezbollah to have such long range missiles. Sopher99 (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
syria did that after the rebels began revolting..israel didnt have a problem with syria until the 2006 lebanon war..israel realized they had suffered a setback because assad was helping hezbollah..so now their goal is to weaken syria by forming alliances with anybody they can find. Baboon43 (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Sopher seems to forget that the Syrian army is still heavily Sunni in composition. Rebel held areas just happen to be largely Sunni too, attacks on these are not motivated by sectarianism. Also, Israel has never liked a strong Syrian army, even prior to Assad domination. Or any Arab army that was not merely a western puppet, that is. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone here suggesting an edit? TippyGoomba (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we put double lines between the countries. Sopher99 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Israel should not be in the infobox. It has not stated that it is in a state of war with Syria, and the strikes were directed at shipments from Iran to Hezbollah ([18] [19]). To include Israel in the infobox is speculation. --Philpill691 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit removing Israel as consensus was to post. Israel has now made major airstrikes on Damascus. On the contrary, it is rash to speculate what Israel's motivations regarding Hezbollah are in these latest airstrikes, particularly since targets were much more systemic than mere strikes on missiles headed to Hezbollah, and therefore are being directed against Assad's government. I welcome other thoughts on this issue, please discuss further. Hello32020 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to make it clear that the edit Hello32020 reverted was not mine. Nevertheless, I maintain my position that Israel has not joined the conflict; the conflict being the fight between forces trying to overthrow Assad and those defending him. Until Israel starts attacking Syrian positions for the purpose of overthrowing Assad's regime, we cannot say that Israel has joined the conflict. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I will remind everyone of WP:NOTFORUM. Do not simply discuss. Provide sources and suggest edits. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
A Syrian Military Research Facility isn't missiles headed to Hezbollah. [20] Hello32020 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Other targets hit may include the "Syrian Revolutionary Guard, the 104th brigade headquarters" and the "Fourth Armoured Division" [21] Hello32020 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The airstrikes are not, according to any sources, directly related to the war between pro-Assad and anti-Assad forces (which is what this article is about). Therefore Israel should be removed from the infobox. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Well clearly Israel is not the Free Syrian Army or Assad's army. However, Kurdish forces are listed as combatants in the article and their objectives are separate from those of the general anti-Assad forces, hence they are listed in a separate section like Israel. As Israel is bombing Syrian government forces, not just missiles headed toward Hezbollah, they are fighting Assad forces and therefore should remain included in the article. Hello32020 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The Kurdish forces are included in the same column as the FSA because they share the goal of overthrowing Assad with the FSA; they are separated by a line because there have been instances where the FSA and Kurds have not cooperated with each other or even (rarely) fought against each other. Israel is not, according to any sources, trying to overthrow Assad, unlike the FSA and the Kurds. Therefore, including Israel in the infobox is making an unsourced assumption that Israel is trying to overthrow Assad. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Do all conflicts result in the overthrow of leaders or does every state involved in a conflict need to have this as their proximate goal? If they are engaged in combat, they are in a state of conflict, and therefore their actions support the anti-Assad goals of overthrowing Assad's regime. Hello32020 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
No, not all conflicts; but in this conflict the goal of the opposition is the overthrowing of Assad. Israel's actions cannot yet be considered part of the Syrian civil war (which this article is about); at this point Syria and Israel should be considered to be in a separate conflict. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
No, the Kurds do not have the same objectives as the rebels. The Kurds want autonomy in their own region, regardless of whether Assad rules the rest of Syria or not. The rebels want to overthrow Assad, and rule all of Syria, including Kurdish areas, which goes directly against Kurdish goals. FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Please discuss with evidence on the talk page before making reverts. A consensus was formed to add Israel on this talk page, removing it from the article without discussing it here, as I and Philpill691 have done, and having a consensus to remove it is contrary to the editing process. If an administrator could restore the consensus to add Israel, please do so. Hello32020 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
You haven't addressed my point: just because a country takes an action against a country which happens to be engaged in a war doesn't automatically make said attacker part of said war. In this way, Israel cannot yet be considered to be a belligerent in the Syrian civil war. Therefore Israel does not, at this point, belong in the infobox. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have reached an impasse, as I believe the evidence shows that Israel's strikes against Syria constitutes an entrance as a separate party (hence in a different section than the Free Syrian Army, etc.) into the conflict. This is because it constitutes an attack against Assad's regime, with Israel's objective being for different reasons (like the Kurdish forces), but meriting inclusion into the article because of the attack being directed against Assad and the implications it has in the environment for the strategic benefit of the anti-Assad forces. I recommend other editors join the discussion so we can reach a stronger consensus, rather than editing the page unilaterally. Hello32020 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, neither of us will change each others mind. Input from others is needed. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

My input: read WP:NOTFORUM. Provide sources and suggest edits, what the two of you are doing here is disruptive. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Both me and Hello32020 have provided sources and suggested edits. We have simply been debating whether Israel should be included in the infobox. We are not engaged in a general discussion as you have implied. Nothing at WP:NOTFORUM applies to our discussion. Why don't you contribute to the discussion instead of criticizing the way we have been having it. --Philpill691 (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
it really doesnt matter if israel is just practicing shooting missiles into damascus or they really intend to overthrow assad..this is ridiculous you cant say a state had such and such motive so they are not technically in the war..lights camera action, any military activity within syrian territory is now part of the syrian civil war. Baboon43 (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Philpill691, your position is that there should be no change to the infobox, as far as I can tell. I don't see anyone providing a concrete suggestion for an addition, just a forum-like discussion. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The suggestion is to add Israel in the opposition column, that should be pretty obvious by now. And if anyone objects since they are not "directly allied", then why are the Kurds there? FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Israel has practically declared war on Syria. 42 Syrian soldiers killed by Israeli airstrikes. They are more than involved now. The Israeli's have killed more Syrians than the Turks have, and we have Turkey on here. So we should definitely have Israel. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/world/meast/syria-civil-war/?hpt=hp_t1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuddy999 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't put the spillovers and stuff like that in the infobox. The israeli action was for sure in the context of this war but it had very little efect on it and was not part of a larger action to help either side. It's not a intervention or anything of the sort. It's a unilateral action by Israel that serves only to their own interests. Simple as that. Coltsfan (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't think weakening the Syrian government is in the interest of the Syrian rebels? Are you kidding? There are videos of them shouting "allahu akbhbar" during these bombings, I doubt that was in condemnation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Weakening the syrian government? 42 syrian soldiers apparently died. 42 out of 200k. The weapons that were destroyed, they where going to Hezbollah, not to the syrian government. The base that was attacked had little importance overall. You can't even call it 'a simbolic action'. The bombing only served to Israel's interests. The rebels gain no military advantage or any leverage with that. It was a unilateral action, that only served Israel's purposes. Actually, this atack could go bad for the rebels as they can lose support of muslims because, well, they all hate Assad, but they hate Israel more. And they will not digest a israeli attack on arab soil that easy. Coltsfan (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That the loss of military facilities and soldiers should not be a gain for the rebels is beyond laughable. And no one has yet proven these weapons were indeed intended for Hezbollah, that's just Israeli spin. And as for Israel being their biggest enemy: "The conflict has taken on an increasingly sectarian cast, and some opposition fighters have said that for the Sunni-led rebellion, the greatest enemy is not Israel but Iran and Hezbollah, which are dominated by Shiites and are the closest allies of Mr. Assad’s government. In recent weeks, the Sunni fighters have increased their criticism of Shiites and Alawites, a related sect to which Mr. Assad belongs."[22] Jews are considered people of the book, whereas Shias are merely mushrikoun. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, to be clear, we know that officials have obliquely suggested, or anonymously stated, that Israel bombed a weapons shipment for Hezbollah; the Israeli government doesn't however comment officially on the matter, and if it did, that wouldn't make its intentions clear. According to the Washington Post, "the Associated Press quoted an anonymous Middle East intelligence official (who said) the target was Fateh-110 missiles," and "neither Israeli nor U.S. officials confirmed an attack Sunday morning that reportedly hit a weapons shipment in Syria." The Guardian has written that, "while avoiding direct confirmation that Israel had struck, Shaul Mofaz, a former defence minister, told Israel Radio: 'The policy of preventing leakage of significant weaponry and advanced systems to Hezbollah is right, otherwise we could encounter it here in Israel.'" From the American National Public Radio, "according to the AP, an Israeli embassy spokesman said Israel 'is determined to prevent the transfer of chemical weapons or other game-changing weaponry by the Syrian regime to terrorists, specially to Hezbollah in Lebanon.'"
In any event I'm not sure if the rationale that they bombed a convoy matters: if Syria were to bomb a weapons convoy in Israel (or Turkey, or the United States, etc.) on its way to supply the rebels, that would be an act of war, and we'd see as much immediately. -Darouet (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

can we add israel as ally of the rebels? source [23] Baboon43 (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, there are so many rebel groups that we can be pretty sure one man isn't speaking for the entire opposition. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC
The biggest problem is that youtube is not a source. Even if it was, a random channel is not a source. Sopher99 (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The ultimate source is obviously not Youtube, but some Israeli TV channel. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
As a sidenote, if Israel should be included on the rebel side because of its airstrikes and border clashes, the same should be done with Iraq, but on the government side. They assisted government troops in several occasions.
To be honest, there's much more evidence to include Iraq as a supporter of the government than Israel as an opponent to it. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, logistical support is hardly in the same range as, you know, actual attacks. Israel has attacked the Syrian government on Syrian ground. The same can't be said for Iraq and the rebels. And one opposition claim of the latter doesn't suffice. And heck, if logistical help counted, we would have most of the Gulf and the West on the side of the rebels. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
"Logistical support" ? The Iraqi troops openly clashed with rebels. Iraq has been involved much more actively than Saudi Arabia or Qatar, it merits mentioning in the infobox. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Iraqi soldiers have been attacked by al-Qaeda rebels within Iraqi territory, so of course they clash there. What happens on Syrian territory is another matter, and is what's actually relevant here. That Iraqi soldiers should be fighting in Syria is unverified propaganda on behalf of the FSA. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that the israeli attack is pretty much an isolated event. It's not part of a major set of actions to help the rebels. The attack did not have the objective of helping the opposition in any way. The attack did not help their cause in the long or short term. It's a isolated event, part of Israel fighting against Hezbollah and as part of a troublesome relationship between the two countries. Coltsfan (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Six attacks within the last year and a half is hardly "an isolated event". Israel has attacked parties of the conflict more times than any other state. And if the attacks didn't count for anything, you wouldn't have opposition figures praising the attacks ad nauseam these days. Military equipment and facilities are pretty hard to replace when you're sanctioned by the entire western world, so yes, any such loss is major. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Clashing with the Syrian army does not necessarily make Israel a combatant in the Syrian civil war. There's a clear lack of logic reasoning here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Israel is attacking a single faction in a civil war. It is therefore, by its actions, taking part in the conflict, and aligned with the other faction. Reliable sources are stating that much, so our musings and made up criteria are completely irrelevant. If it had attacked both, you might have had a point. And yes, Israel can be involved in the civil wars of other countries, see Lebanese civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


Any action against the syrian government helps the rebels, sure. But events such as these did not have that intent. At most, it's a spillover. It's more like part of a larger action against Hezbollah to prevent it from getting more deadly wepons to use againts Israel. The last israeli attack was 5 mounths ago. It's not like Iran who has 10k troops on the ground, or Turkey, that launched the first foreign attack on Syria and it's openly helping the rebels with wepons and money. I believe that everybody that it's in favor of putting Israel in that infobox has not shown any good information, backed by a reliable source, that this israeli action is part of a larger set of events that have the intent of helping either side. Coltsfan (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comparing Israel's interferences in Lebanon with a few, isolated strikes, as FunkMonk is doing, pretty much demonstrates the lack of logical reasoning here. Attacking a few Syrian/Hezbollah targets is not the equivalent of actively taking sides in a civil war, as Israel did in Lebanon. This argument is outright ridiculous. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so let's see some headlines from reliable sources (compiled by Director after the last attack):

There are many more like these, probably more after the recent attacks. And just for the record: no one cares what you personally think is "illogical" or "ridiculous". All that matters is what reliable sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Some newer sources. "The Israeli launch of two air strikes on Syria last week presents a marked and dangerous escalation of their involvement in the Syrian war. "[24] "Israel’s attack turns Syria’s civil war into regional war"[25] "Israeli air strikes in Syria may change direction of civil war ".[26] FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The Israelis are able to strike much more protected military assets, and with far greater power. Vague speculation about their intentions is better replaced simply with facts: that they have carried out a series of major airstrikes clearly debilitating to the Syrian regime, and likely to hasten Assad's downfall. We might argue that Iran, and the United States, have overall supplied far more weapons and support than anything Israel has done for the rebels. But Israel has now intervened - directly, militarily, and on a spectacular scale - several times, and their animosity towards the Assad regime certainly predates this conflict.
I think we have more than enough sources to justify their inclusion as a party in conflict. -Darouet (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's say there was a civil war in Syria when Israel launched Operation Orchard in 2007. Would Israel then be a combatant in that war too? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
That was a single attack, not six, so it is debatable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody here is questioning whether Israel is or isn't involved in the civil war. But to list them as a active combatant is inaccurate. Sure, they have taken the rebel's side in the conflict but they are not doing things on a daily bases to help the oppositions' cause. This could be the first step for a largest israeli military involvement in Syria, but right now it isn't. And by the way, the attack received widespread condemnation from almost all the factions involved in the war, including the oposition. Coltsfan (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no unified opposition, and therefore no spokesperson for the whole mess, some are condemning simply because they don't want to seem like stooges, but many others are cheering for Israel. And "daily basis" attacks are irrelevant, the Kurds are dormant most of the time, and are listed anyway. This is not about the amount of attacks, but the fact that such attacks occur. The sources decide, not me and you. And they have decided that Israel has entered this conflict. The criterion for inclusion in the infobox is significant armed participation, and this certainly applies to Israel. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
israel is the reason there is a civil war and rebels are getting western backing & the whole conflict within a conflict fallacy doesnt fly..hezbollah is in the war according to the infobox so israel should also be in there..turkey usa rebels or saudi arabia can condemn israel all they want but the truth is they are its biggest allies. Baboon43 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
FunkMonk; My point is that Israel's actions has nothing to do with the internal strife in Syria, and could just as well have happened without there being a civil war. Israel is arguably involved, but not a combatant.
Baboon43; Hezbollah is participating with its own fighters on the side of the Syrian government. Israel has yet to effectively take a side in Syria, and is not likely to do so in any near future. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Do I have to repeat that your personal musings are irrelevant? The fact is that reliable sources are stating Israel has entered the conflict, as in the Syrian civil war, as a combatant, by actively attacking one faction on several occasions. Whether they are officially allied to the rebels or not is completely irrelevant, Israel is fighting one faction, but not the other, that's what matters. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
as expected syria plans to respond to israel [27] Baboon43 (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Even the Syrian National Coalition has condemned the isreali attack (here and here). Coltsfan (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

FunkMonh; Again - Israel's actions has nothing to do with the internal strife in Syria, and can thus not be considered an interference in the civil war. A potential Syrian-Israeli war can in fact be completely unrelated to the Syrian civil war, even if they might happen simultaneously - and besides, a few strikes here and there does not qualify for being placed in the infobox, which would totally contradict the purpose of that template. I suggest we wait until the scope of the Israeli strikes becomes evident before debating whether or not Israel should be considered a combatant.
Baboon43; If Syria retaliates, it could change everything. But until then, let's refrain from making dubious conclusions, ok? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
hezbollah and iran should be removed if israel is removed. Baboon43 (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hezbollah and Iran have troops on the ground fighting beside the government 24/7. They don't even try to deny or conceal. They fight with the sole objective of helping the regime to defeat the rebels. The isreali action it was completely different. It's a totaly differente geopolitical scenario. Coltsfan (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmm? Where are these Iranian troops? If they really fight 24/7, they must be some hi-tech invisible, immortal bastards. Only one dead body within 2 years and it's still unknown what the guy was doing there.
Back to the topic: Israel is definitely a part of this war now. The question is how to classify them. --Emesik (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Funkmonk and Baboon have advanced a whole series of sources stating that Israel has entered the conflict. Let's present some other sources - explicitly arguing the opposite - so that we can discuss them. -Darouet (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

RS do not really ever describe Israel actions as motivated by pro-rebel stances do they. they seem to have been ok with 'hostile but quiescent' assad Syria. read RS. - you can read stuff like this - "Syria's deputy foreign minister said the Israeli strikes were an act of war, designed to help the "terrorists". The strikes do indeed only help Assad make the argument that the Syrian rebels are the pawns of a western-backed plot designed to undermine resistance to Israel" - its all very murky.Sayerslle (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Their motivation is irrelevant, the Kurds are not "pro-rebel" either (they want autonomy in their region, not necessarily Assad's removal), yet they are on the same side. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
That argument doesn't hold water at all. The Kurds does not need to have a "pro-rebel" stance - they are rebels themselves. As I've said before, the Israeli strikes has nothing to do with the Syrian civil war, and should thus not be considered a part of it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
They are still not on the same side. Kurds regularly attack rebels. Israel never does. So if anything, Israel is even more aligned with the rebels than the Kurds are. And I repeat, the threshold for inclusion is participation in the violence by attacking involved parties, not the motivations for doing so (otherwise, why does Israel have an entire section in the article?). That has been determined by reliable sources already, so please, no more personal observations/objections. We don't care how you think it should be. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Israel may be secretly aligned with the rebels, but this does not make them a combatant in the Syrian civil war. The recent attacks was about Hezbollah, not the internal strife in Syria. [28][29] --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
If you attack a faction within a conflict, you become part of the conflict. Otherwise we wouldn't have a section devoted to Israel's role, and reliable sources would not state Israel has entered the conflict. Case closed. The motives are irrelevant, the actions are what count. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
well said FunkMonk, Israel and Turkey are clearly against the Government and have attacked government forces multiple times thus they should be listed on that side. case closed Jumada (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The last isreali attack on Syria was 5 months ago and it was also a isolated event. If it was an intervention or a series of actions, the argument that is a combatant could hold. But, by many sources, this is NOT what happened. This is not part of a broad intervention. Besides this event, Israel is not taking part of the fighting AT ALL. The attacks did not have the objective of undermine the government or to directly assist the rebels in their cause. FunkMonk, besides this argument that "if you attack one faction, then you are inherently assisting the other", do you have any reliable source that shows that Israel is taking right now an active part in the fighting? Maybe with troops on the ground, daily bombings or anything of the sort? Coltsfan (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, home-made criteria for inclusion don't work. A belligerent is anyone who takes part in the fighting. Israel does that. And we have sources that state this. It doesn't have to be as part of a "broad intervention" or whatever you think. And how the hell are six attacks within a year an "isolated event"?FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a broad intervention, but it has to be more than a simple attack. Coltsfan (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

How about repeated, massive air-strikes? This is no border clash or "a simple attack" (have you been paying attention to the news?), this is carefully targeted destruction of one factions facilities and soldiers, at least six times within a year. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Massive air-strikes... one small base, with very little military value, partially destroyed, and some 42 soldiers allegedly killed (according only to SOHR, a London based group). Coltsfan (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, your personal opinion is irrelevant (and hard to take seriously), and the reliable sources seem to disagree with you. So can we please quit this useless back and forth? Deal with the sources. And why are baseball fans infesting this page? I thought we had enough in Sayerslle. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The "reliable sources" you are refering to based their research on SOHR and SANA sources, both extremely bias (not even you can deny this). No one can really tell 'what things are' in Syria. There is NO source that proves that Israel is actively participating in the war. And say that they are combatants is completaly humorous. Coltsfan (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, although I am a baseball fan, my username (Colts) is actually a reference to a football team. ;) Coltsfan (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
FunkMonk; I don't accept your logic. These attacks could just as well have happened without there being a civil war in Syria, and was all about Hezbollah - not the Syrian rebels. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
This will be the last time I repeat this: What you "accept" is irrelevant, go and argue with the reliable sources. This is Wikipedia, not your personal blog. What matters here is verifiability. FunkMonk (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I have supplied sources that clearly contradicts your claims. And besides, Israel has struck Syria before - nothing unusual. Israel has not intervened in Syria as a combatant as of right now. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
My (and many sources') claim: "Israel has entered the conflict by attacking a faction." Your sources say: "Israel's attacks were not intended to help the rebels." Now, can you tell me how those two statements are mutually exclusive? I can help you: they aren't. The threshold for inclusion as a belligerent is not allegiance to a faction, but attack on one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
It is possible to fight two separate conflicts at the same time. As of now, we need to distinguish between what's part of the internal conflict in Syria, and what's not. Israel's actions definitely falls within the last category unless anything else is proven, which won't happen very soon. It seems like some people are in a hurry to declare Israel as a combatant, but we should bury our biases and wait until the motives behind the attacks can be confirmed/disproved. Ok? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
No we do not need to "distinguish" or "prove" anything. That's what the reliable sources are for. And they state Israel has joined the Syrian conflict. How many time do I have to repeat this core Wikipedia principle? What is it you don't understand? FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
RS say over and over that Israel is ambivalent about the civil war. "IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz warned on Monday that rebel terror groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad may target Israel next.Speaking at the Herzliya Conference 2013, Gantz said, “The situation in Syria has become unstable and incredibly dangerous. Although the likelihood of war with Syria is low, the terrorist organizations fighting against Assad may see us as their next challenge- " --Is 'entering in the conflict' identical with 'entering in the civil war' anyhow? I know the refrain is 'we mustn't think or concern ourselves with anything that RS say about these things' isn't that a bit mindless Sayerslle (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, see above. Whatever Israel "feels" or "thinks" doesn't negate the fact that they have attacked a party in the conflict, and that "reliable sources" state they have joined it. That is all that matters. Address the damn sources, and please cut out with these useless musings. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Some newer sources. "The Israeli launch of two air strikes on Syria last week presents a marked and dangerous escalation of their involvement in the Syrian war. "[30] "Israel’s attack turns Syria’s civil war into regional war"[31] "Israeli air strikes in Syria may change direction of civil war ".[32] FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel can't give orders to assad on who he gives his weapons to even if it is true that he is transferring weapons..infact hezbollah has yet to be on the terrorist list in the european union. (on benny gantz).Israel makes those statements so that they are not exposed as allies to the radical sunnis..if rebels are successful its a win-win for israel..rebels will proceed to attack minorities and sunnis who are not radical & they might also attack israel which in return israel might flatten the region..ofcourse the most popular outcome is that rebels proceed to destabilize shia in the region. so adding israel in the infobox is not an injustice Baboon43 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

FunkMonk, it's like one of your sources say: "Israel's goal was apparently to deny sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, and may not have been intended to stir the pot in Syria." And "Other analysts disagreed that Israel was intending to undermine Assad, especially since any successor to the Syrian leader could prove to be even more hostile." All the other sources tell the same story: "this may indicate" "could" "maybe"... they are all speculating as well. Just like you are. Coltsfan (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You're yet again missing the points. The intentions are irrelevant for whether or not Israel is a belligerent, the actions aren't. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
FunkMonk - It is possible to fight two conflicts at the same time! If Syria and Israel goes to war (which has not happened yet), even that wouldn't necessarily make Israel a combatant in the Syrian civil war. Israel has declared its neutrality in this conflict, and your speculations regarding clandistine or "unofficial" support to the rebels are completely irrelevant. Even if there was total war between Syria and Israel right now, it would be outright misleading to add Israel to the infobox unless there is a clear connection. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
we can make the same argument about the kurds..as you know the kurdish movement is widespread and they are looking for a kurdistan..one can say thats another dimension of a conflict which differs from the civil war..but nobody is going to waste their time and identify each belligerents motives and make separate articles accordingly now are we? the only way israel might be removed is if random countries start throwing missiles at syria and have their own separate motives..in that case we would have to remove it because its clogging up the infobox but i doubt any other country will attempt that Baboon43 (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The Kurds are a combatant in the Syrian civil war because they are Syrian rebels. It's as easy as that. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
israel is also a combatant..if killing syrian troops isnt fighting then what is? your personal analysis of the situation can't be used when RS is available. Baboon43 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I've already answered that. Please read what I wrote yesterday. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Neutrality in the conflict"? Who are you trying to kid? In any other war, attacking one faction within it would kind of undermine ones neutrality. But I guess when it comes to Israel, all laws are bendable... FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
It is possible to fight two conflicts at the same time, and unless Israel steps into the internal conflict in Syria, this is simply a separate conflict between Assad, Hezbollah and Israel. Please don't force me to repeat myself again. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


It's pure original research to include Israel on one or other side in the infobox, as if they are fighting against one or other side, or supporting one or other side. They claim to be strikes on Hezbollah and those assisting them. The strikes were, according to them, on weapon transfers to Hezbollah, and not related to the civil war. Avaya1 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Then you must have missed what "original research" means. If reliable sources state Israel has joined the conflict, then that's what the reliable sources say. Do you know what I mean? FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the infobox allows for three sides in the conflict. Israel could go there, addressing on Avaya1's objections. I had another thought, Israel does not appear in the Gulf War infobox either. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Any third column should go to the PYD, who have maintained a substantive and important third position in northern Syria since last summer. This article, however, would argue strongly against adding Israel as a "supporter" of the rebels: [33] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_25&oldid=1142779214"